In 2003 slams were split evenly between Roddick, Federer, Ferrero and Agassi. Federer won WTF.

What happened? The members of the ATP voted Roddick "Player of The Year."

Click to expand...

That's why I said "probably", because nothing is ever 100% sure. But if Federer ends up the year #2 at the ripe old age of 31, with 7 or 8 tournament wins on all four surfaces/conditions (Djokovic only won on *one* up till now), including Wimbledon and WTF, and breaking the 300-week mark during the year, I wouldn't bet against him being awarded this accolade by his peers.

I think you could make a case for it being close when Roger or Murray wins the WTF, but if Djokovic wins it's quite clear. I think rankings in the end are very fair. If Murray wins it he has won OG, WTF AND a slam, plus a final. That's the most big tournaments. If Roger wins, he's won a Slam, the WTF, a silver medal, 3 MS titles, and maybe 3 500's as well. That's a strong case too, but Roger has somewhat underperformed in Slams compared to the others.

It's quite close, and the rankings will reflect that. I think rankings ultimately are very fair in men's tennis.

With the 4 slams split evenly, is it agreed that, should any of them win in London next month, that's the tiebreaker???

Click to expand...

Hey Tom - I hope you are well. I made exactly the point you are making after the USO. Of course, it all depends on how you want to measure POTY - many will argue that whoever finishes year end number 1 is, almost by definition, POTY - and it's a pretty compelling argument.

Others will say that there were 6 'big ones' up for grabs this year. If Roger wins WTF he'll have 2 of them - same as Murray. If Novak wins WTF then he'll have 2 of them - same as Murray, and if Rafa somehow wins WTF then he'll have 2 of them - same as Murray. But if Murray wins WTF then he'll have won 3 - half of the 'big ones' available; with the other half split between 3 players. That would be a reasonably strong argument for Murray being POTY despite only finishing 3rd in the rankings.

There's no slam dunk or right/wrong argument IMO - I think Nole is in pole position because in the event of a 'big ones' tie he has YE no1 and 3 slam finals to use in the tiebreaker!

All 3 of them are deserving. If Nole wins the WTF then it is without question. If Andy wins, then he'll have 3 of the "big ones," but his year hasn't been nearly as consistent, and he has no M1000 titles unless he wins Paris, and even if he does win Paris I'm not sure. In Roger's case, it's quite impressive he's even in this discussion at his age. I don't mean to sound biased, but the truth is, that's the tiebreaker for me. Novak should be #1 right now. There was no way he was going to replicate 2011, but he's done very well. He perhaps should've won more than he did. Federer has done things this year that a lot of people didn't think he could, myself included. I knew he could win a slam, but getting back to #1 was another matter. Couple that with his general motivation to win 500's and 1000's, and that's even more surprising.

It's clear that Djokovic has done much better than anyone else in slams.

Click to expand...

Everybody knows this, and even though the slams are obviously the most important events on the calendar, they are not the only ones. Murray has the OG, Federer himself won a silver, and Novak did not win a medal, we also don't know about the WTF yet which is an event trumped only by the slams. It could be called the "indoor" slam for all intents and purposes. There is also the point that if Roger or Novak can win Paris, one of them will finish with 4 1000 titles, and the other will finish with 3. Novak has had the most consistent year. Nobody disputes that, but it's far from a consensus that it's been the "best."

Everybody knows this, and even though the slams are obviously the most important events on the calendar, they are not the only ones. Murray has the OG, Federer himself won a silver, and Novak did not win a medal, we also don't know about the WTF yet which is an event trumped only by the slams. It could be called the "indoor" slam for all intents and purposes. There is also the point that if Roger or Novak can win Paris, one of them will finish with 4 1000 titles, and the other will finish with 3. Novak has had the most consistent year. Nobody disputes that, but it's far from a consensus that it's been the "best."

How much hard work they need, and still no near the champion.
Olympic gold medal could be the reason to proclaim player, sportsman of the year, but in country for which he won the medal. In tennis world, slam final is way bigger than Olympic gold.
1200 points : 750 points.
Any how, between tennis fans, all arguments for player of the year, are valid - age of player, country proud, color of eyes, etc.

-if Murray wins the WTF he "might" be named Player of the Year because of haviing won 3 of the 6 biggest events- U.S Open, WTF, and the Olympics, and being a finalist at Wimbledon too, with some partiality to his breakthrough performance. Not sure though as 0 Masters titles is a glaring stat, maybe he can win Paris though.

-if Djokovic wins the WTF he wins the Player of the Year easily and even if he doesnt he probably does.

How does winning a tournament with LITTLE value to the players anymore, and has lost just about all of its prestige among players on tour today (at least if you compare it to years past) make one the player of the year?

Hell most of the top players just "shut it down" after the USO anymore

It sucks to say because I have always loved the YEC, it has the importance of almost CRAPOLA anymore.

The only player that seems to actually take the YEC seriously anymore is Federer. He seems to be the only one that has a greater appreciation for the year end championships and its lineage

How does winning a tournament with LITTLE value to the players anymore, and has lost just about all of its prestige among players on tour today (at least if you compare it to years past) make one the player of the year?

Hell most of the top players just "shut it down" after the USO anymore

It sucks to say because I have always loved the YEC, it has the importance of almost CRAPOLA anymore.

The only player that seems to actually take the YEC seriously anymore is Federer. He seems to be the only one that has a greater appreciation for the year end championships and its lineage

Click to expand...

That's like saying Nadal's the only guy who gives a crapola about the French Open. Claims such as the one you just made have no premise, no drawing point, no sense. They're just something you say to put things down because you know noone can disprove you.

That's like saying Nadal's the only guy who gives a crapola about the French Open. Claims such as the one you just made have no premise, no drawing point, no sense. They're just something you say to put things down because you know noone can disprove you.

Click to expand...

Guys still take slams seriously, and everyone can enter those slams. By the end of the year, the top players can only enter the YEC, and by that time many (with already a ton of tennis played under their belt, nursing some injuries and are more battered and bruised) are just looking forward to next year and a bit of a break.

Surely you can't think a tournament at the end of the year means as much as a slam in the beginning of the year?

Guys still take slams seriously, and everyone can enter those slams. By the end of the year, the top players can only enter the YEC, and by that time many (with already a ton of tennis played under their belt, nursing some injuries and are more battered and bruised) are just looking forward to next year and a bit of a break.

Surely you can't think a tournament at the end of the year means as much as a slam in the beginning of the year?

Click to expand...

Does the Australian Open mean more than the US Open? Guys outside the top keep up the intense playing schedule to gain enough points to qualify for the WTF. Maybe the public don't recognise it as much as they used to (?) but it's still a big deal. Way bigger than a masters atleast.

That's like saying Nadal's the only guy who gives a crapola about the French Open. Claims such as the one you just made have no premise, no drawing point, no sense. They're just something you say to put things down because you know noone can disprove you.

Click to expand...

The French Open never had 5 of the top 6 withdraw as was the case at the 2005 YEC. Nalbandian the eventual winner was something like the 3rd alternate this year to even play, lol!

Maybe for you, but it's the only tournament that you can win even with two losses! As for me, IW and Miami are more important than WTFs

Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that you can win IW & Miami, and any other of the scheduled events except WTF, by playing maybe only one seeded player. You can't get away with that in WTF, you got to play the best of the best every time you step onto the court

You forgot to mention that you can win IW & Miami, and any other of the scheduled events except WTF, by playing maybe only one seeded player. You can't get away with that in WTF, you got to play the best of the best every time you step onto the court

Click to expand...

Not true. In your group you can get three players who qualified for their good results on clay, and you can win those matches, easily!

That's because the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF. Are you claiming the WTF isn't that important and that players don't care about it?

Click to expand...

It is important but has lost value to the 70s and 80s and even 90s. At one point it was considered more important than the Australian and maybe even the French which is obviously far from the case today as you concede "the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF". In 1978 or even 1996 nobody would have said that, in 1996 it would be 2 times more important at most.

It is important but has lost value to the 70s and 80s and even 90s. At one point it was considered more important than the Australian and maybe even the French which is obviously far from the case today as you concede "the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF". In 1978 or even 1996 nobody would have said that, in 1996 it would be 2 times more important at most.

Click to expand...

Would you deny that it's the 5th biggest tournament in a normal Tennis Calendar year? I don't see anybody here suggesting it's half as big as any of the Slams.

Winning a tournament pitting the top 8 players in the world against each other to see who comes out top is an underrated achievement. As for the comment about facing claycourters, Ferrer is predominantly a clay courter but he was a semi-finalist at the US Open. Does that mean Djokovic's runner up spot is less prestigious?

Guys still take slams seriously, and everyone can enter those slams. By the end of the year, the top players can only enter the YEC, and by that time many (with already a ton of tennis played under their belt, nursing some injuries and are more battered and bruised) are just looking forward to next year and a bit of a break.

Surely you can't think a tournament at the end of the year means as much as a slam in the beginning of the year?

Click to expand...

It is all the more special because the entry is far more select. You need to earn your spot in the WTF by being one of the best players for the past year. That makes it special.

And your last line doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody said the WTF is as important as any Slam. But you seem to be suggesting the AO means more than Wimbledon or the US Open just because it's at the start of the year.

Would you deny that it's the 5th biggest tournament in a normal Tennis Calendar year? I don't see anybody here suggesting it's half as big as any of the Slams.

Click to expand...

I would rate the WTF, Olympics, and Davis Cup all basically equal so the 5th-7th biggest tournament of the year. Davis Cup is similar to the WTF in that it has alot of prestige to what it used to be, while the Olympics has increased as time has gone on. The way I see it currently:

Wimbledon/U.S Open/French Open
-----------
Australian Open

--------------------

David Cup or Fed Cup/WTF or WTA Championships/Olympic
-------------------
Miami/Rome
-------------------
All other Masters or Premier Mandatory

Yes that years event had to be the biggest joke in history. I remember watching some of the early matches and being so bored I turned it off and didnt bother again until the final. Thankfully Nalbandian vs Federer saved the event somewhat.

It is all the more special because the entry is far more select. You need to earn your spot in the WTF by being one of the best players for the past year. That makes it special.

And your last line doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody said the WTF is as important as any Slam. But you seem to be suggesting the AO means more than Wimbledon or the US Open just because it's at the start of the year.

Click to expand...

The slams are all equally as important nowadays.. Obviously. You dont have multiple players withdrawing from slams like you do the YEC. It was the other poster who mentioned a slam.. I wasn't even talking slams.. I was talking the YEC in general which has lost significant importance over the years.. At least to years before

1. The WTF is at the end of the year, when players are looking for a break
2. Players are withdrawing from the YEC all the time over the years.

The last tournament of REAL importance at the end of the year is the USO IMO.